(first posted 7/4/2012) Today is the Fourth of July, so let’s celebrate one of the most American cars – Chevrolet – and one of the most American car types – full frame, V8, rear wheel drive, whitewalls and a landau top. Behold the Caprice Classic Brougham LS, a car that may have made some Cadillac owners consider GM’s bread and butter division. Let me warn you that this is going to be a serious B-body love fest, so if that’s not your cup of tea, may I suggest re-reading the 1970 Camaro, Willys CJ-2A or 1958 DeSoto CCs? For those who enjoy these traditional American cars, read on to learn about the Caprice Brougham LS, the Dr. Jekyll to the 9C1’s Mr. Hyde.

The story of the 1977 General Motors B-bodies has been told before (check out the ’78 Bonneville and ’80 Caprice CCs for more information), so we’re going to be focusing on the Caprice starting in the late ’80s. By that time, the Caprice had received a more aerodynamic redesign once, in 1980, and had just received new front and rear styling for 1986. It was still clearly derived from the ’77 original, however.

In 1986, the Caprice Classic Brougham was at the top of the pecking order. The basic full size Chevy was the Caprice, replacing the Impala in the lineup after 1985. Between it and the Brougham was the Caprice Classic, the sensible middle-class choice. Starting in 1987, there was an even flossier version than the Brougham: The Brougham LS. Other than the new model, 1987 Caprices also got new composite headlamps and parking lights.

So what separated the Brougham LS from the standard Brougham? In a word, more. More gingerbread primarily, consisting of a padded landau vinyl top with LS-monogrammed opera windows and opera lamps in the B-pillars (but of course). The interior was the same as the regular Brougham, so this was primarily an exterior decor package.

One interesting thing about the Brougham LS: to achieve the formal roofline, a fiberglass overlay was grafted onto the unchanged steel roof, which the padded top hid neatly. As you can see, its resemblance to the contemporary Cadillac Brougham is striking – and most likely intentional.

So why did Chevrolet bother? Starting in 1987, they had the full-size GM lineup, save wagons, all to itself. Its corporate siblings were gone; the last one, the Pontiac Parisienne, was discontinued after 1986. Well, that was the whole point! With the fancier B-body Parisiennes, LeSabres and Delta 88s replaced with smaller front wheel drive H-body models, GM’s more traditional mid-price customers needed somewhere to go. Plus, not every loyal Cadillac customer was wild about the new shrunken C-body Sedan de Villes and Fleetwoods.

While no one was going to think a Caprice Classic Brougham LS was a genuine Caddy like a RWD Brougham D’Elegance, it looked, rode and drove an awful lot more like a Cadillac than the 1985-88 FWD C-body versions – especially looked.

To Cadillac’s credit, they almost immediately realized they needed a restyle, and fast. The 1989-93 C-bodies were much more palatable to Cadillac customers, with over 131,000 Sedan de Villes sold in 1990, at $27,540 a pop. But it still was a front wheel drive car with a unitized body, which was still a relatively new concept for Cadillac Motor Division.

With a Brougham LS, you could have all the Cadillac gadgets, an available leather interior, rear wheel drive with V8 power and a comfortable ride. And all of this with a base price of just $14,245 in its inaugural 1987 model year (a V6 version was also available, at $13,805). Not a bad deal, eh?

Even by 1990, the Brougham LS was a luxury car value, at $17,525 for the V8 model, as the V6 powered Caprices were dropped after 1988. In comparison, the last real Cadillac, the 1990 Brougham, was $27,400. Now the Brougham was still very attractive, if a bit long in the tooth, but hey, so was the Caprice by this time. That year, the Cadillac Brougham outsold the Caprice Classic Brougham LS 33,741 to 11,977, but I wonder how many frugal new car buyers saw that ten grand difference and went for the Chevrolet? It was certainly something to consider.

The Caprice also had the most Broughamtastic sound systems. How many woodgrained car radios have you seen? Even the Cadillac stereos did not feature plastiwood. Take that, Cadillac!

As I relayed in my Cadillac Brougham Outtake, a friend’s dad was a salesman at the Pontiac-Cadillac dealership in Rock Island. Thanks to those great deluxe Cadillac brochures, I had a serious Brougham jones in fifth and sixth grade. I also liked the Caprices, for much the same reasons. I remember especially liking the 1987-90 models. I thought the composite lights and flush taillights were really nice, and that the 1980-85 models looked old-fashioned by comparison.

Sometimes CCs find me; this one did. I was just shopping at Hy-Vee, minding my own business. As I was leaving, I noticed a Landau roof way, way, wayyy across the parking lot. “We have a possible Brougham sighting here; I must investigate,” I thought to myself. I’m glad I did. Not only was it a Brougham LS, it was a mint condition one. It was beautiful.

The interior was equally nice, though I would have selected burgundy leather in lieu of the gray velour this example sports. Even the driver’s seat and armrest are perfect. Somebody loves this car. With that gas can sitting inside, I imagined some retired guy going to get gas for his lawn mower, then stopping at the grocery store to pick up a gallon of milk and loaf of bread for the missus. Perhaps that’s just what happened.

Look at all that legroom. Shame there are no fold down footrests, like the Cadillac Fleetwoods had once upon a time. And correct me if I’m wrong, but that plush near-shag carpeting looks an awful lot like the Tampico carpeting used in Cadillacs in the ’70s and ’80s. Can anyone (like Carmine) confirm that?

Here is the whole reason for the Brougham LS’s being: that roof. Look how nice it is! No fading and not a stitch has let go. There were also no scratches or door dings as far as I could see. This is almost certainly a meticulously maintained original. Who would sink big bucks into restoring a circa 1990 Caprice?

I really like this car – maybe you’ve noticed? While it looks great in black, I’d love one in emerald green with tan leather. Burgundy or navy blue with matching interiors would be my second and third choices. Dark colors suit cars like this, and really make all the brightwork stand out.

As pretty as it is, the Brougham LS was never a really big seller. Despite its attractive price per pound, Cadillac still sold way more Fleetwoods, Broughams and Sedan de Villes than Chevy sold Brougham LSs through the ’80s, despite Cadillac’s many troubles during that decade.

In its first year, 23,641 LSs were built, compared to 56,266 standard Caprice sedans. While it looked cheap compared to a Cadillac, the LS was quite a bit more expensive than other Caprices. A 1987 V8 non-Classic Caprice sedan was $11,435. Compared to the LS, that was about a three grand difference, a not inconsiderable sum. LS production was 23,641 for ’87, 21,586 for ’88, 28,033 in ’89 and as previously mentioned, 11,977 for 1990, its last year.

1990 was a bittersweet year for the Caprice. It was the last year for the original “right sized” 1977 body, and although it would get new duds in ’91, the new Caprice would be, well, kind of a dud. The new styling was modern but odd, and thanks to the advance of the SUV Era, the Tahoe would displace the Caprice and its corporate siblings from their Texas home after 1996. Too bad Chevy didn’t keep the three-box Caprice in production alongside the new one. They could have called it the Caprice Classic Classic. And just think, then there could have been an even Broughamier name for this car: Chevrolet Caprice Classic Classic Brougham LS. God bless America, what a name that would have been!

169 Comments

But if you’re my height (6′) and you’ve ever had to ride in the back seat, you’ll take that FWD Caddy over the cramped legged Caprice every day of the week. The Caddy may not have had the gravitas, but it had vastly superior space utilization. And seats. I had an ’88 DeVille, and it handled, road, and travelled far better than its critics will ever admit.

+1. The true limousines were the FWD C/H bodies, at least in legroom. The only place I can discern where the B-Bodies might have been roomier was in shoulder room.

People need to admit these died with good reason: They weren’t efficient on a whole swath of levels, and GM didn’t do enough to improve them. Why lust after these when a 1965 Impala Sports Sedan is at least better looking and less tacky, and less woefully out to date as purposeful sedans given the competition.

Looking at the stats, the Caprice has a 2″ longer WB than a Caddy Fleetwood, but 4.9″ less rear legroom. The Cadillac Brougham with 5.5″ more WB gains a whole 2.5″ rear legroom – still 2.4″ less than the 15.4″ shorter overall Fleetwood. There is very little difference in head or shoulder room.

Then again real-world space does not always reflect the official stats, eg is there toe or foot room under the front seats, how close to the floor is the seat and is the backrest angled differently? I have no experience with any of these cars.

The difference is clearly in the firewall-to-front-axle dimension – hard to complain about this, but the shorter cabin in the bigger rwd Cadillac is definitely an anomaly that arguably shouldn’t have occurred. Would Cadillac buyers have rejected a car that put the extra 5.5″ WB over the Caprice into the cabin rather than half of it in the engine compartment, especially since there was still a longer front overhang? The difference from the fwd C-body would still be quite stark for those requiring a traditional rwd car, and as a bonus there would have been a saving on tooling etc.

The 80s were also my childhood. And I grew up with the 50/50 split of these. And I’ll still lust over a Taurus LX Wagon over any B-Body.

Call it different cultures (California versus…. everything else)…. but especially by the late 80s these seemed quaint, and purposeless. Unless you had to tow a boat.

Jordan Tenenbaum

Posted July 5, 2012 at 8:40 PM

While I don’t think I would lust after a Taurus wagon, I certainly wouldn’t kick one out of my driveway. I suppose I am more of a live and let live kind of person.

Wagonlove

Posted July 6, 2016 at 7:58 AM

This is why I love CC so much. It’s the only place for “weirdo’s” like us. Who lusts over a Taurus wagon, or an 80’s Caprice? I do! You do! So few people of my age group (35-40) could care less about these types of cars. Sure I love 2015 Mustangs, Audi A8’s, Suburbans, Hellcats, and so on but I have such a deep love for great condition 80’s cars. ANY station wagon, any GM B body, Crown Vic’s, Mercedes 560’s Cadillac’s (both rwd and fwd) Pontiac 6000’s first generation Tauris, heck even the k cars are growing on me. And it’s ok! Here at CC it’s okay anyway. And we all get each other! I just wish Paul would see this reply and know how much I appreciate his work and dedication to this site.

And, I grew up in the 1980s, and Caprices were cop cars and taxis. I was so hypersensitive about spotting a Caprice in the rear-view mirrors that the few retail models mostly annoyed me. Although in retrospect, these Broughams are an interesting relic.

I’d agree with you for rear leg room, but as most tall people know legroom dimensions don’t always reflect reality. The fact is that from the driver’s seat the old RWD B-bodies were roomier and more comfortable, at least for my tall lanky frame. I spent a lot of wheel time behind both cars when I worked at a GM dealer.

The appeal of these cars is exactly that they are a throwback to another era, last of the great full-size American RWD cars, and probably one of the best versions ever made. Furthermore, the B-body was a pretty bullet proof and reliable car, while these C-body Caddy’s were terribly unreliable cars. There was a reason we nicknamed them Cadil-scrap. While personally I find these Brougham versions extraordinarily tacky, give me a non-Brougham Caprice with a F41 suspension package any day of the week, These were and still are excellent road machines, IMO one of the best long distance cars of their era regardless of how inefficient they are compared to more modern designs.

The luckiest ‘find’ in a used car that I ever discovered, around 2006, was a nice, low-mileage Caprice w/ F41 and G92 axle… and for low money.

I’m so cheap that it breaks my heart to have to replace the good tires on it… ’cause they’re almost as old as the car! And believe it or not, it’s getting difficult to find P225/70R-15s now. I’m planning on BFG radial TAs.

Being a cheap guy, the most amazing thing, after its great handling, is the fuel mileage: 22.. in town!

I believe that is Tampico, the lower end cars started getting it after Cadillac started using Tangier, which is he one that looks sort of like fur, though I think they may have switched down to Tampico later in Cadillacs too, I don’t have my Brougham Desk Reference handy.

The rear seat is where you see where the extra Brougham bucks were spent in the Cadillac, the Caddy has full rear door armrests with the window switches in the arm rest with a proper full ash tray and lighter in each rear door along with a nice big red and white courtesy lamp of course.

Carmine- I have a 90 Burgandy LS Bro all orig. Bought new. I loved the car 26 yrs ago and still do. It is the bet riding car I have ever been in. As to the carpet, it is great. Best thing are the seats. I may get 9miles per gal., but I don’t care. What drives me crazy is a lot of these b bodies went to middle east or got crushed. Little repo parts available.

Thanks for the American Car Celebration. Nothing says it better than a Chevy BOF and since this was longest running style of any of the B’s it pretty much wraps it up. Still would love to have a new Brougham. A stretched 4 door using the frame of the Mustang or Camaro. How bout a Chrysler 300 with the upholstery of the 77 New Yorker? Maybe a redo of the Cordoba or Thunderbird using the Mustang or Challenger as a starting point. We need to start a Brougham Restoration Society. Of course a proper Brougham really needs to be BOF and I guess that will probably never happen unless you want a truck or truck station wagon.

I would argue Chevy started the whole thing with “LT”… as in Type LT for the Camaro. Then LS for the CCB. Then there was LS and LT in the truck range, which I believe spread to many of their cars. Then there was the new top dog LTZ.

Could write an article about these monikers and how little sense they make…luxury sport, luxury touring, lxury touring with a z, z[i]ts, ztw gt, st, ste, s, SL, sle, slt, CE, ve, Xl, xlt, esv, ext, and espresso. They all mean exactly the same thing: crap.

By the way, a coworker had the Plymouth Voyager Espresso, perhaps the most ironic of all cars ever made. It was basically just a plain Jane Voyager that had Espresso in vinyl script applied to each front door. Probably the least expressive conveyance known to man…

I kind of laughed while reading the article. Your enthusiasm for the Brougham LS really shines through!

The one thing you didn’t mention was the 1988 Fleetwood Brougham shown had an optional roof treatment, too. Before the 1990 (slight) restyle of the RWD FB, the optional vinyl roof treatment was called the “Premier Roof” option. I believe it was about $895. The 1988 Fleetwood Brougham d’Elegance pictured has this option. By 1990, it was incorporated into the “redesign” of the outside appearance.

Am I the only one who thinks this car would have looked better with a completely covered rear quarter window a-la-Chrysler Fifth Avenue? It would have really thickened that C pillar up and given the car more of a limo look..

I don’t really remember seeing many of these back then. It seemed at that time that the Crown Vic/MGM were selling a lot of loaded-up versions, while the Caprice was selling more middle-trim cars.

I really like the clean lines of the Chevy B-Body. But to me, that puffed up rear roof section looks like some sort of cancer. It’s so crude, the way it protrudes on the side, looking back. It just ruins it for me. So there. You asked for it.

Honestly, I agree with you. I have always preferred the more formal roof treatment on these, but I think it would look much cleaner sans the vinyl. As we all know, however, that isn’t necessarily possible without quite a bit of metal work.

I agree with you Paul, it just screams Cadillac-wannabe – one wonders why the powers-that-be thought that $895 apiece was worth diluting the brand separation in such a tacky way. I noticed the photo of the rear seat just shows the tacked-on section at the top corner – was it glaringly obvious from the inside?

Even after the mid-80s Roger Smith reorganization (which made the visions basically marketing departments, rather than real, mostly autonomous operating divisions), Chevrolet and Cadillac were in separate groups. When people are rewarded (in terms of bonuses, promotions, etc.) for the success of their group or division, they tend not to assign too much importance to the overall balance or hierarchy of the corporation as a whole — not just at GM, but in most any large organization.

John H

Posted July 5, 2012 at 4:41 PM

You don’t need to tell me that, I experience it all the time. There is still an overall head of GM design though, who is the person I’d expect to step in and say ‘no’.

My mother, (a dedicated school teacher back when teachers WERE teachers), bought a brand new 1987 Brougham LS in burgundy. It was her first NEW car.
It was a leftover late 1987, and after heavy discounting the deal was made at $14,000 out the door. She drove the car 245,000 miles.

Other than two collisions with deer, the car was remarkably trouble free. I helped her sell it on her front yard for about $2000, if I recall, (in 1999).

Of the many cars she has driven over the years, it was the first one she really enjoyed getting into each morning to head to school. It was a GREAT looking machine.

Sorry Paul, even though I rather like small and efficient cars like you, this one still make my heart go pitter-patter! What can I say, I didn’t pick my old screen name “supremebrougham” for nothing!!!

These were actually rather common sights in SE Michigan back in the day. I have a 1988 Caprice brochure that is still in mint condition, got it as a kid in 1988. I’ll have to dig it out again now…

I would say that this car is a 1989, as the 1990’s had those unfortunate door-mounted seat belts, and this one doesn’t.

To be more precise, I believe there were still V6 Caprices right up through 1990, but in 1989-90 they were available for fleet sales only, and were not sold to the general public. That said, there probably weren’t any fleet LS’s. I’m a bit surprised that the LS was ever available with the V6. There can’t have been many 1987-88 LS models built that way.

My heart would drop if I popped the hood to find the 4.3. Mind you, it’s not as bad as the old 229 3.8 that they once used. My friend has an `83 Impala with the 229. Yeesh. We once had a drag race; him in the Impala, and me in my `84 Delta with the 231 3.8. He got me off the line, but I caught up to him around 50 and stayed ahead until we reached the blazing speed of 65; it took about a quarter mile of that rural Ohio highway to find out.

You could flip the air cleaner lid over to get that great 4 bbl sucking sound. So what if it reduced power, the sound made everything ok.

Used to do that all the time in hish school in my 79 Grand Prix with the 301 2bbl. Wasn’t fast, but sounded a little better. One time I tried it in my dads 78 De Ville. Took it around the block one time, and by the time I got home the engine was bucking and kicking, and dieseled when I shut it off.

I got lucky a few years ago, finding—and buying—a clean, low-mileage ’89 Brougham [ not an LS, which is just a couple of outside doo-dads], with the F41 suspension and ‘performance’ axle of 3.08 (instead of the 2.73).
Holy Cow—it goes great, handles fine, and gas mileage is incredible: 22 . . in town!!! It was so nice that I didn’t even look at the odometer! The A/C quit working and the radio truly sucks . . . . but, a great car . . at a great price, fortunately for me. Such helps “take the curse off” of some truly awful cars that I bought in the distant past.

Seriously? I spent today riding in not one but two WWII Duce and a Halfs, accompanied by a ’43 Ford GPW (“Jeep” for the uninformed) and a 90’s GM product is the best thing we can come up with on the Fourth of July???????

I’m usually more of a Ford fan, but I do love B-body Chevs. I’d never heard of this Brougham LS before now, and am loving the roofline even more than the regular models. Thanks for expanding my knowledge Tom!

To anecdotally answer your question “but I wonder how many frugal new car buyers saw that ten grand difference and went for the Chevrolet?” My millionaire great uncle had gone from Cadillac to Chevy by 1990 because he was naturally stingy (like many rich people) and he had cracked the platform sharing code. The fact sticks in my mind because he was proud of putting one over on the GM brand tiering system.
He was actually a bit of a family outlier, my almost as well off aunt and uncle had been rolling a BMW or Mercedes since around 1970, my grandfather had a Nissan Maxima and my parents had been driving imports since the late 60s.

I meant it was the last real (meaning traditional) Cadillac in the lineup, compared to the FWD models. The 1990 Brougham lasted into 1992, then was restyled and renamed Fleetwood in ’93. That version continued until 1996, when the last RWD Fleetwoods were built.

I love the LS! A bargain Fleetwood Brougham!! I am surprised Cadillac Division didn’t kick and scream over this one. In years past, Cadillac bitched about Buick Limiteds (pre- war and 1958) and Olds 98 LS’s (especially the ’65 LS that had Fleetwood like ammenities) – as Buick/ Olds was seen as enchroching on their Broughamium turf.

It isn’t an LS, but it does have that maroon leather interior that Tom prefers.

General question: any thoughts on the best powertrain for the box B-bodies? Seems like a trade-off: either you can have the huge displacement early engines, or the 4-speed transmissions of the later models… though I honestly don’t know much at all about the foibles of these vehicles.

The TH-200 or whatever it was called was generally acknowledged to have had its weak points addressed in 1987. The first year of the fuel-injected boxes was 1989. Performance figures were unchanged but driveability was improved especially if you live in the land of the fall/spring idle adjust.

A little late to the party. Back in fall 76 an older couple lived next door. The husband was retired and drove and lovingly maintained a 61 Cadillac Fleetwood purchased new. The wife had what I recall was a 67 or 68 Coupe De Ville. As she was still working, the newer Caddy was driven far more and was drinking more gas and taking up more space than the wife could tolerate any more. So she bought a new fully loaded 77 Caprice. I recall thinking the day she brought it home: what a handsome car – still do. She loved it, much more svelte and better on fuel consumption yet very luxe in trim and appointments. That Caprice may have been produced too long but what a revelation in sleek packaging it was back in the day.

Whats odd about these is that door glass is still frameless, so you roll down the rear window and you have that vinyl roof panel still there attached to the door, but nothing else. I always wondered why Mopar kept frameless glass for the downsized big cars in 1979, when there were no more hardtops and GM and Ford when to framed doors when they downsized 77 and 79.

John, How ’bout a ’63 or ’64 Cadillac Fleetwood 60 Special? They had vent windows in the rear doors… but the big window in said doors did not have a frame. Said cars did have a post between front & rear doors, tho.

I HAD lusted after one of these ’79, ’80, or ’81 New Yorkers after finding one locally. I had to wait about seven or eight years until the son of the lady owner (born in 1920) made it available.

Well, I kind of kick myself for letting it get away. The price was reasonable, the condition of it was great, and the mileage was very low. The dark blue leather was probably the best in the world of this short run of NYers.

Stupid me—-I let it get away . . . . just like other fishermen know about. And, s.o.b., it had a factory sunroof, to boot!

My local buddy had one, not near as nice, . . and he said that said car gave him a lot of problems . . . . and he taught auto mechanics for a few decades. Still, because I am a male, “looks” can do a number on male minds. I don’t apologize for that, however. BTW, I just found a gorgeous ’72 Imperial . . . I want to track down the owner . . heh, heh

So many stories about the downsized C body DeVille/Fleetwood for mid 80’s. But, has the RWD 1985-92 Caddy Brougham been forgotten? Bloggers seem to go on and on about the ‘travesty’, as if all Cads went FWD, and the Caprice was the “only” RWD car left afterwards.

One other thing convieniently “forgotten”, once the FWD DeVilles were restyled to ‘look bigger’ for 1989, then sales went up, and many Caddy fans loved them. So much so that when the DTS announced to be dropped, dealers were worried of lost sales to loyalists.

I’m curious, ‘Chicagoland’, as to why you picked ’85 as the early year.. in your writing about RWD Cad Broughams (through ’92).

What about the ’77 through ’84s? Admittedly, Cad chose some awful engines in times past: the GM-converted Diesel, the 8-6-4, and the 4100 aluminum job.
Most of the ’90 – ’92 Broughams had Chevy engines.. instead of the ‘doggy’ Olds V-8s used in the mid-to-late 80s.
Some folks speak well of the 425 CID engine in the late 70s Cad Broughams. But the styling of those…. rather ‘yuck’, imo.

As far as I’m concerned, they can all give FWD to the fat lady! I did have one: that was enough… and it was a good one, relatively-speaking. LOL

Great article on a great car. I live in Rhode Island and those LS Broughams were VERY popular here. My neighbor had a burgundy one, probably an ’89. They kept that car for at least 15 years and replaced it with a mid 2000’s Crown Vic. As far as the mid 80’s FWD deVilles/Fleetwoods are concerned, in 1989 I saw a clean beige 1987 Fleetwood d’Elegance with 14,000 miles on it at a local Caddy dealer and knew my grandmother would like that car. She was currently driving my uncle’s hand-me-down 1979 Sedan deVille and it was much too big for her to handle. I was 22 at the time and surprisingly, they let me take the car to show her with no salesman! She drove the car down the road, made a complete turn around in a parking lot and said “I want this car!” She paid $14,500 for it – The sticker was in the glove box – it was in the upper $20 range. It had the beige velour d’Elegance interior – really comfortable – loaded, but no rear defroster and deleted vinyl roof – come to find out it originally came from California – the man’s daughter lived in RI and he drove out here to see her and passed away so they sold the car to the Caddy dealer. My grandmother babied that car and drove it until 2005 when she could no longer drive. It had about 60,000 miles on it and because it was garaged it still looked brand new. I have to admit, those cars were not well liked by the press but I drove it many times and have to say it handled and rode beautifully. It was very underpowered, but overall the conception was innovative – roomy, comfortable, decent mileage and handled well. I wish I had that car as she passed away 2 years ago – it would have been so cool to own something she cherished so much. Unfortunately, my uncle wanted her to sell it right away after she lost her license and a neighbor of hers bought it. They destroyed that car in no time. It was painful to see it get ruined. I always found it strange how a car could be loved/cherished by someone and in no time another person could wreck it so quickly? Seems unfair…..

They were pretty nice cars, the downsized Park Avenue and 98’s as well, I remember my old man driving one when they were first out, and he was a die hard full size car owner as there was, but I recall him commenting on how nice and light these cars felt, and how punchy the 3.8 litre V6 was.

You’re right Carmine – they were pretty nice cars. Ironically my grandmother’s companion had a 1987 Olds 98 Regency, medium gray with gray cloth. He told me how he went all over to every Olds dealer to find a basic Regency and not the Regency Brougham because he liked the base Regency interior better. Seems like most dealers were stocking the Brougham models at the time. He loved that car. I drove it several times too, and the 3.8 V-6 was definitely peppier than my grandmother’s Caddy with the 4.1 V-8. Looking back now I think GM eventually had a home run with these cars once they were perfected. The Oldsmobiles were everywhere – I can especially remember how popular the Delta 88’s were. They were roomy, well-built, rode nicely and pretty economical for a car that size and peppy for having a V-6. Plus the size was perfect for the 60’s crowd that was their main target.

This is as close to my grandmother’s car as I can find – except hers had no vinyl top and was more of a tannish/cream color – hers was rare with no vinyl top, no rear defroster and velour interior – most of the d’Elegances like hers that I have seen had leather interiors and have the vinyl top. In RI, no rear defroster was unheard of!

My mom drove an 83 Caprice Classic when I was a kid. I wrote about it in the other post about the 1980 Caprice. I would like to repeat here that for me this body style is the most elegant and sleek of the downsized Caprice. What I don’t care at all is for that silly partial vinyl roof treatment. Ugh! The full vinyl roof in the third picture looks so much better, in my opinion.

Great posting. I am 34 and drove no less than 4 boxy Caprices during my teen years (’79, ’83, ’85, ’90). I went to college in 1996 driving a ’90 Brougham LS in navy blue metallic with blue leather. Regrettably, the car was in an accident in 1997 (not my fault) and the insurance company totaled it. Even after owning a ’95 Impala SS, the Brougham LS is the car I miss most!

I could not agree more with your love fest. I was hooked in 1987 with those opera lights rpo code(C93) and pillow top seats.I have a 1989 LS white with blue interior.that i have owned since 1999 i have owned an 1987 and an 86 2 door and must say the TBI fuel injection model of the 1989 is the best chevy ever made in my view for the money. I really liked the overall stats on how many LS’s were built. I have the car about 2/3 restored. the price for my on the original sticker was 19,514 it has all options except the leather seats and rear window defrost it has the F41 and G92 options which are the sport supension and performance axle. I would love to find a some blue leather seats and the opera lights in good condition for that car.

89 and 90 came with only 305 v8 the code LO3 “E” engine.a 7 engine or LO5 engine is the 9C1 police special and was built for trucks till 95 but the 200R4 transmission is the best of all MW9 code and if you can find the G92 axle that is the very best. the axle was 21 dollars new and the supension was 49 dollars if the service ticket is in the trunk look for those codes, the quarter top is what made the brougham LS stand out. but you could get a brougham with all the LS amenities except the opera lights and quarter top. also you could not get a two tone LS.My LS now has a 350 LO5 stroked out to a 383 with all the performance upgrades. The hardest part now is finding someone to do the work on restoring them. everyone wants the camaro, vette, monte carlo el camino but for my money the 1989- 90 TBI Chevy Caprice Brougham LS was the best Car chevy ever made and the proof is chevy quit making it after one full year and i have yet to get a vette to try me. 1990 caprice were no longer made after 12/31/1990 which is only 3 months into a model year.

I like my ’89 Caprice Brougham. There’s precious little difference between the plain
Brougham and the LS. The latter’s radio has a graphic equalizer; the exterior has some doo-dads. But, frankly, I prefer the FULL vinyl top over the teeny one on the LS.
But what I most especially like is the F41 suspension and the performance axle ratio. It took a while to get used to; but I like it a lot. I get 22 mpg IN TOWN!! Yes, it IS better than most Caddys of its era.

My Grandmother who lived in Tucson Arizona had an 89 Caprice Classic sedan with the TBI 305 and 200-4R transmission. It was the last car she ever had when she stopped driving in 2002. It was somewhat of a stripper with crank windows and no power locks. But it did have a power trunk release, stereo cassette and of course A/C.

I was a service mgr. for a Chevrolet dealer for 8 years in the 80’s.the only cars I drove were caprices unless we were running low and then would drive a M/C SS,these were the best cars Chevrolet made
but to note all Caprices from 83 V8’s only had 700r4 transmissions and In 83 they were failing right and left until they started building them right, the M/C v8 had 2oor4 trans

I watched these two videos, but I didn’t finish with the first one, the non-LS one . . . . all because the salesperson is like the far too many morons that think a big luxury and reasonably-powered car must SOUND like it. Revving the piss out of a car like this is a move from a semi-literate ignoramus with an IQ of less than 80, IMO. The whole idea of these cars is for them to be as QUIET as possible—-not as noisy as possible!! How dumb!! Performance doesn’t have to be noisy, and is actually more impressive when its quiet. Oh, good taste and discretion seemingly cannot be taught.

Your Brougham does not have opera lamps. You saw that in the videos. You see Brougham LS has opera lamps in the B-pillar and a formal roof line too and a different vinyl top. To answer your question the leather was an option. You have the cloth/velour interior.

Thanks for your trip down my own memory lane! I have to say that my 1990 Classic LS was one of my favourite cars. And on the highway, the 305 engine settled down into overdrive and gave me 27mpg, Canadian gal. I have the records for every drop of fuel I ever put into it, and it was certainly not a gas-guzzler — for the size of the car.

I’ve included a picture of my LS from when I advertised it for sale. Only problem was, it wasn’t “new” anymore, and in 2003, neither was it “old” enough to be appreciated for the condition it was in. I cry today to think it sold for only $1,000 🙁

Great information. Love your passion for these cars. I love the 86-90 caprices. I grew up in a blue 89 brougham. I’ve had 5 of them. An 86, 2 89 models, 90, and I am currently almost finished with a full restoration of my white 87 brougham LS with the burgundy cloth interior. It’s a great car. One owner. Low miles. I’ve restored the entire drivetrain. Including a freshly built 350 out of a corvette. The 305 with the 4bbl q-jet had good performance but I still felt like the car needed more. The interior is completely refinished and the vinyl top has been replaced. It just got out of the paint booth yesterday. I plan on having this car for a LONG time. I got lucky with parts because my local junk yard has an 88 caprice that had 20,000 miles on it that an elderly lady’s grandson crashed into a tree. The interior of the car was still perfect as well as most of the lights and emblems.. Etc. I bought all of it. I wish there was more people who love these cars. Car doesn’t have all the chrome trim or opera lights back on it yet but here she is.

I never owned one of these but i did consider one before purchasing my triple dark red 1986 Ford LTD Crown Victoria back in 1992. The Caprice Classic I test drove was an ’84 model finished in that sort of coppery light brown, with a chocolate brown full vynil top & interior. It ran & drove great, even with the feedback version of the Quadra jet 4bbl. I ultimately chose the Ford because it had many merits over the Chevy; fuel-injection, true dual exhausts, turbine-spoke alloy wheels vs. the Chevy’s ersatz fake wire covers. These are still nice looking cars; proportioned right, clean styling, & the updates for ’86 & ’87 really did a lot for these cars. Finding a nice one today that some urban punk hasn’t sullied with 20″ blades & some stupid BOOM-BOOM stereo & atrocious day-glo or candy paint scheme has become near impossible. Great to see this unmolested example in great shape.

One of the saddest days of my life- when I went with my grandfather to C. Weaver Chevrolet in Yorkville, NY in March of 1997 to trade in his 1987 Chevy Caprice for a 1997 Chevy Lumina. Both base models, but wow, 2 totally different cars. Somehow I knew then that things in society were changing- for the worse.

Even more sad; the caprice was beautiful- white with dark burgundy interior, burgundy pinstripe, 55,000 miles and STILL smelled new. I will never forget the new car smell that remained in that Caprice for 10 years.

After about a month, my grandfather knew he had made a big mistake. By then, he regretted that he refused to listen to me when I tried talking him into a used ’96 Caprice that was on the lot. He was 76 at the time and I think those old-timers just assumed that their replacement car would be similar to their trade in since it had been that way for the previous 40 years- (he had been driving rear-wheel drive caprices/impalas since 1959).

I think a lot of peoples’ parents and grandparents experienced this feeling once they hit the proverbial GM brick wall of small, FWD plastic, foreign car rip-offs. And now today in 2015 without a front bench seat, forget about it. It’s over.

Why? What exactly is it that you “never know”? Licence plates are public. They are seen and read by every person and every camera in the roving vicinity of the car. What practical or hypothetical good can possibly be achieved by obscuring the plate in a photo on the internet?

Okeh, sure, I’ll continue biting: what do you imagine HACKERS can do with a licence plate number they see on the web that HACKERS can’t do with a licence plate number they see on the street or in a driveway or at the drive-thru?

VideoCalibrator

Posted July 6, 2016 at 4:36 AM

It’s just a matter of courtesy & respect Daniel.
I’m sure you have both in decent doses, but
you might want to familiarize yourself with them

I guess nobody noticed, but the feature car is a 1989 model, not a 1990. If this were a 1990 model year car it would have front door belts. The fact that it has the rear shoulder belts and no
door belts means this car is a 1989.

Two of the biggest profile shifts was the trimming down of the
hood – which I actually like. Pre-1980 too much meat above the
actual grille, and, the ever rearward & upright drift of the rear
window behind the back seat across 13 years. From a 45deg
slope to practically vertical by 1990, it was easy to mistake for
a Cadillac roof if broughamed-up in vinyl.

I like this car a bit better now then when it was new. Through the gauzy lens of 26 years, its a car from another era, and the turmoil that was GM in the ’80s is harder to ascribe to this car.

GM was definitely thinking less than ever about divisional hierarchy, and just worried about sales wherever they could find them. Pesky Ford and the Panther trio were probably driving them crazy – Ford was making easy profit on cars that generally required little updating to sell during the mid and late ’80s. Even Chrysler’s woefully dated and supposedly uncompetitive M body Fifth Avenue was selling in surprising numbers.

So, GM tarted up the Caprice trying to appease some of the former Buick and Olds customers that were defecting to Ford’s Panthers or the Fifth Avenue. The LS package was not attractive, and just wrong on a Chevy in many ways.

An analogy to whoring itself out is apt – too much make up and inappropriate clothing – and like most prostitutes, it was a career dead end that could not last. Caprice sales generally sagged through this period anyway, at the expense of GM making a public marketing statement that its more prestigious brands were offering inferior vehicles.

In no small way, Chevy and Cadillac offering the most complete line of big RWD cars at the time was a real predictor of the way GM is mostly built on those two brands today.

I would also argue that Ford did a much better job at updating the Panther cars, verses GM with the B-bodies. By 1990, Ford had fully updated the interior, dash board, and gone to MPFI. A big reason that the B-body (along with the G-body cars) were kept around so long was that they still sold well, and GM made huge profits on these cars as the costs had been long amortized.

I’d agree that Ford did a better job with the Panthers – our family shifted from from Caprice and Olds 88 in the late ’70s to Panthers in the late ’80s.

Keeping in mind that the Mercury Grand Marquis and Crown Vic were very similar, and generally trimmed out at a more Olds / Buick level than the Caprice, Ford was selling a lot of Panthers at good transaction prices. I believe the MGM may have been Mercury’s best selling car in the late ’80s, good for 100,000 copies or so.

With the Town Car also selling well, and much better than Cadillac’s Brougham, It’s possible that Ford may have bested GM for total sales of large RWD cars during the late ’80s. Or, did an incredible job of closing the gap compared to, say, 1977.

As much as anything, I think GM kept the B / C cars around out of fear for Fleet business – which eventually ended up going to Ford anyway.

That isn’t to say that GM’s H body FWD large car replacements were irrelevant, but a lot of people had a hard time warming up to them – and the Panthers outlived those cars as well.

(tongue firmly in cheek… or is it?) OK. That’s it. Can some rational person tell me why the M body Chrysler 5th Avenue is nowhere to be found on CC, yet, the Chevrolet 5th Avenue is on here!?? For crying out loud!! Chevrolet isn’t even GM’s flagship brand — although I do love this particular example I must admit.

Perfect. I was just too lazy to look harder than a cheap ‘5th’ or ‘avenue’ term search in Mozilla’s search. Apparently ‘a href’ HTML hyperlinks aren’t analyzed since at least one of those terms are in the above Curbside. url.

We in the Europe prefer the complete red taillights, there is nothing nicer then full red shine within full car width in the night. To stay legal on this side of ponk, you need to work out led custom lights to shine amber turn signal over the red.

These export tailligths have 1 main safety issue, the car appear narrower then it is due the missing shinning segment at the corner.

Of course there is a tendency among car geeks to prefer whatever foreign-specification equipment is locally exotic. American “tuners” seek out European- or Japanese-spec nameplates, grilles, lights, etc; European and Japanese “tuners” favour American-spec parts.

Beyond that, though, the safety issue in this case runs only one direction, not both as you surmise. The amber turn signal is well demonstrated to do a significantly better job than the red one of preventing crashes, but there is no tail light-positioning safety issue as you describe. It’s understandable how you might arrive at such a guess, but that is prevented from being an actual safety issue by the spacing requirements in the applicable regulations: ECE R48 requires the outer edge of the tail and stop (brake) light functions to be located within 40 cm of the vehicle’s extreme outboard edge, a dimensional spec that is based on sturdy research on what’s necessary to prevent exactly the misperception you mention. The European-spec tail lamps on the Caprice have the tail lamp much closer to the outer edge than 40 cm; there is no issue.

(As for “LED custom lights to shine amber through the red lens”: it is a neat trick; I’ve seen that YouTube video, too, but while it might get the car through an inspection, it’s not actually legal—it violates ECE R6 and R37, among others.)

You sounds like making a living in Brussel… Up to 40 cm taken from each side on 200cm wide body is imo dangerous, no matter what the relevant law say.

Daniel Stern

Posted July 7, 2016 at 11:27 AM

No, sir, in fact I’m in Canada. Your guess about what’s dangerous is just that—a guess—and it’s not supportable by actual crash data. Sure, I agree with you in principle that it’s best for the tail lamps to be as far apart as practicable, but there’s no data to suggest vehicles with the tail lamps inboard of the turn signals get hit in relevant ways more than vehicles with the tail lamps outboard of the turn signals.

Nor does your “danger” make much sense if you think about it: if you say you hit the corner of a car because the taillamp was 30cm from the outboard edge instead of 3cm, what you really mean is you weren’t paying attention and you were much too close to the car you hit.

one of these with a TBI 305 would be a really nice find. have that engine in a 92 Caprice wagon, and it pulls great for 170 hp, starts all the time, and runs fine at 153 K. also gets over 20 MPG in mostly highway driving. I am convinced that last gen BOF V8 full size was peak car for comfort, durability, ease of repair, and practicality.

I had a 79 Caprice Classic…..black with silver mid section two tone…..I was considering buying a new ’90 Caprice Classic but Chevy no longer offered the silver in a two tone….it was now a slate gray….which did not offer enough contrast from the black primary color like the lighter silver did on the 79….
I ended up trading the 79 Caprice for a used 87 two tone S10 Blazer which I soon grew dissatisfied with due to its lack of engine power from its 2.8 V6

Brougham haters gonna Brougham hate but that aside, I think this car is a real gem. First of all, the condition is spectacular – seeing one in like-new condition really does illustrate how close it was(and superior in some aspects) to a contemporary Cadillac.

That said, if I was to order one like new (a B-Car Chevy Brougham) I’d go with the non-LS to get the two-tone. I’ve seen Dark Blue/Medium Silver metallics that are really attractive.

The mechanic who worked on my family’s cars had a Brougham LS, I think an ’89. Nice-looking car; the facelifted Caprices wore the landau roof well. Mike was a GM guy through and through; when he wasn’t driving the Caprice, he drove a ’68 Electra 225 that he had inherited from his father.

I don’t recall ever seeing a black Parisienne Brougham. They look great in dark blue, so it must be pretty sharp in black too. My family had an ’86 Parisienne Brougham as well, silver with dark blue interior. Vinyl roof that probably started life black but had faded to a dark blue almost the same color as the interior, which was a nice if probably unintentional effect. Ours had the Olds 307/4bbl instead of the Chevy 305 though.

I was lucky to find a low-mileage ’89 w/ the F41 suspension.. in great condition.. and quite cheap. I DO hate the plastic headlights [how do you aim the stupid things??].
I did have to have the transmission re-done [by Steve Peluso, Lee Myles of Boston]. But it’s a GREAT car. The gas mileage is well OVER 20 mpg—in town!

What surprises me.. is that it’s harder to find one of these type Chevies.. than a RWD Cadillac of the same vintage. Check it yourself on your local CraigsList: for every ‘box’ Caprice, you’ll find 4 or 5 RWD Cads! “Go figure.”

Here’s a July, 2018 update: I recently bought a second ’89 F41 Caprice.. which has almost three times the accumulated mileage on it, but is in great shape. Interestingly, it has some of the same odd problems…. such as the right front radio speaker (on top of dashboard) has the same static problem.

With this second Caprice, the original owner (1) passed on a half-inch thick folder of receipts. In it, were nine UNsolicited offers by “exporters” to buy the car. There’s a sizable group effort by Middle Easterners to buy good big RWD American cars, to ship ’em to that part of the world where there is huge demand for them… for big profits! They actually state that they prefer “high-mileage cars”.. because they know that owners here will receive much less trade-in or sale value for such.

I’ve formulated a theory as to why some prefer an F41 Caprice over a RWD panther-platform Ford. These Caprices are better in the Mid-West… where the roads are better than here in the Northeast (from Philadelphia to Boston) where the infrastructure is old and the potholes are many & constant. The big Panthers ride better (and shake less) on such poor road surfaces than do the Caprices. But the Caprices get better fuel mileage and have far longer cruising ranges due to much larger gas tanks. Yet the FoMoCos have far better seats than the GMs—-needed for the very many potholes in NYC area and New England….. where the money goes to illegals.. instead of fixing potholes. Liberalism has high, ‘hidden’ costs—both literal and figurative.
Since the wife won’t leave New England, I just might sell my Caprices…. if I can find a decent late-1980s Town Car (or 2) with leather and light-colored paint. But the supply of those has become suddenly scarce, sadly.

Tom Klockau, I can’t believe my luck: ten years after I bought my first ’89 Caprice Classic w/ fuelie and the F41 suspension,,,, I found another one. I just brought it home within the hour. Yeah, the price was pretty reasonable.. but more than my low-mileage one that I bought ten years ago. This one was well-maintained… but shows signs of the transmission converter clutch being rather reluctant to ‘let go’ when it’s appropriate. Thus, I anticipate the same repair on this one… to the tune of $350.. or so. Oh, the A/C even still blows cold air! No bad, eh?

Yet, even though these Chevy seats are a bit better than mid-1980s RWD Buick seats, I know of no GM automobile that comes with seats as good as a Panther-platform RWD FoMoCo from the 1980s or early 1990s. Plainly, the aforementioned Fords have better front seats… largely because of superior structure! The GMs are merely two aluminum shells with foam rubber over ’em. The FoMoCos have a genuine seat FRAME.. that properly supports the good padding… AND the driver / passenger. [Here’s an odd thing, though: the Cartier seats in an ’80s Town Car are NOT as good as the Signature ones.]

I confess that I’ve always been “a slow learner”.. in the sense of being slow to draw obvious & good conclusions; to wit: THE ADVOCATES here for a Caprice w/ F41 ARE PROFOUNDLY CORRECT! In the last six months of driving my latest ’89 Caprice w/ F41, I have come to the conclusion that it IS a great car… and the best-handling one that I’ve had in 35 years. The only thing that I wish was that the cloth upholstery was not “velour”… and that it had a bit more wheelbase. But it’s a close to perfection as a car can be, IMO now. One thing I really like is that the steering wheel is placed just right: FoMoCo steering wheels are ALWAYS too close to the driver. My F41-equipped Caprices also have genuine “feel” in the steering—-not the numbness that is in Fords.